Shouldn't science be based upon fact instead of philosophy?

Question

Isn't Modern Science just a Subset of Philosophy?

It seems that every scientific fact is in fact an idea that happens to be agreed upon by a lot of people. These ideas are based on simple philosophies that are assumed, not known.

Shouldn't science be based upon fact instead of philosophy?

It seems that one such fact is the fact that there are no facts.
.
.
.

Answer 1

There is indeed a branch of philosophy called the Philosophy of Science.

You wrote: "It seems that every scientific fact is in fact an idea that happens to be agreed upon by a lot of people."

The word "idea" bothers me there. An idea is something that can be arrived at by pure reason. That is not what is meant by a "fact". A fact can be an *observation*, not just an "idea." In other words, a fact can be something that can be verified with the senses. This is important because we assume that we all share (roughly) the same senses, and therefore a "fact" based on senses can be *shared knowlege*. These facts are not based on "simple philosophies" ... although dishonest people with certain philosophies will often simply deny certain observations (i.e. deny that they are facts at all), if they know they will contradict their philosophies. However, science doesn't pay much attention to those people.

Is it possible that our senses deceive us? Yes, of course. Some sneaky demon may be feeding false information to our senses. But if this is true, then this demon is deceiving all of us in the same way. If we can all make the same observation with our senses, then we are all starting with the same base knowledge ... so we can call that "shared knowlege" (even if we cannot tell if that shared knowlege is in fact an illusion). That's what we call "facts." It's the best any group of intelligences (like humans) can do.

And science is based on those kinds of "facts." Shared, verifiable observations. There will always be people who simply deny certain facts, and so yes we end up having to decide that if enough people agree on those observations, then we can call them "facts", and then proceed with interpreting and explaining those facts (what we call 'theories'). This is where we apply reason to those observed "facts", and this gets more contentious. But the facts themselves are not contentious ... except to dishonest people.

Answer 2

The nice thing about the study of philosophy is that you learn to think clearly, and as an example of that, let's look at what you just said:

1) Science should be based on fact, not phiosophy
2) "Facts" in science are not really facts, but merely the consensus opinion
3) Philosophy is just about opinions
4) There are no facts

Now, think about that a minute. First, you argue that science lacks facts. Then you argue that it should be based on facts. Then you say there are no facts? Is it just me, or am I seeing a real disconnect here?

Science works hard to ascertain "facts", but it does recognize that it will never have the level of "proof" that's found in mathematics. It recognizes that whatever "facts" it has decided, they are always subject to revision. How is it decided that which are facts and which are not? The main process is through peer review, because that is the only means we have for settling these things. It took a while, but it's fairly well decided by now that the Earth is round, and orbits the sun, and it was arrived by peer review. Anyone is free to try challenging it today, but odds of overturning it is doubtful. "Scientific facts" are like trees. They start out as saplings, but after a few centuries of challenges "by the elements", big trees get harder and harder to knock over.

If you have a better idea of how to do this, I'd love to hear it. I was disappointed that you did not suggest one in your question.

Answer 3

WWHHHAAATTTTT?? Science is based on fact. Yes, there is some philosophy i it but at the end of the day you still have to show evidence of your findings. What you are talking about is pseudo science which is mixing some facts with fiction.

Science also, gives you the oportunity to question their belief. You will have to conduct your own experiment to do this and report your findings. This goes on all the time.One guy does an experiments and finds something. Then another guy doesn't believe him and thus do his own experiment to disprove the other guy. Neither one is believe until a lot of test and counter test are done.

What you might be thinking of is Theories. Theories are well supported opinions. Pretty much is like you say a philosophy with plenty hard evidence. However, unlike all the other dicipline, you can argue in pro or against something by provinding the necessary evidence. Science does not takes thing by word of mouth only. This is what makes it so beautiful.

Answer 4

The observe 'accident' isn't such as the word 'vehicle crash'. Evolution isn't inconsistent with non secular concept. Many evolutionary scientists are non secular. people make computers, that does no longer mean that somebody makes bananas. Order CAN take place without intelligence. happens for all time. injuries produce clouds, crystals, lotsa captivating issues. formerly rejecting evolution, you may first are conscious of it. the actuality the the Bible consists of some good rules, which includes do no longer kill, does no longer mean each thing it says is right. people who say that technology is sophisticated elementary experience are incorrect. elementary experience says the solar revolves around the Earth. That seems to be incorrect; the Earth spins. In technology instructions, pupils could learn technology, no longer theology. Your "question" is lots too long. in case you have been truly attracted to those themes, the writings of Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould (between others) could help, yet from the tenor of your "question" I doubt you're.

Answer 5

these facts are not assumed, a great deal of empirical data must be collected and proven before the scientific community will call something a fact rather than a hypothesis.
What led you to think otherwise?
Are schools in america really that bad that they don't teach the basics of scientific principles?

Answer 6

There was a time when scienc dealt with facts. The resuklts were presented as statemnts of facts. in recent time scince has been used more and more as apolitical tool. notice in any so called scientific report the number of times you will see word such as could, may, might, or should.

for example "air bags may save 100,00 lives" the unspoken truth is that they may kill just as many.

Answer 7

I don't think that - surely science is the result of hundreds of experiments to determine that one outcome is much more likely than the others, that you can pretty much assume it is a fact.

Answer 8

There can be no absolute certainty, but science is about probabilities. What's the chance a F atom bonds with a H atom? Very high. So for practical reasons, we trust these probabilities. I agree with you to a certain extent with things like the Big Bang Theory and ideas like those, but most of science still depends on reliable experimental data, I think.

Answer 9

I concurr= Alot of scientifically Documentaries and stated notes don't have any proof other than the person or people of that issue and because theirs no one to oppose their so- called findings its considered a fact. I strongly diagree with this kind of reasoning. Their should be proof other than the people that state what-ever.

Answer 10

A fact is a factor. An equation is larger than a factor.